United Steelworkers of America v. Securicor Investigation and Security Ltd.
[1983] OLRB Rep. May 720
2010-81-R; 2011-81-U United Steelworkers of America, Applicant, v. Securicor Investigation and Security Ltd., Respondent; United Steelworkers of America and United Steelworkers of America Local 7105, Complainants, v. Securicor Investigation and Security Ltd., Respondent.
BEFORE: Kevin M. Burkett, Alternate Chairman and Board Members F. W. Murray and W. F. Rutherford.
APPEARANCES: Brian Shell, J. de Kierk and John Fitzpatrick for the applicant and complainants, R. B. Cumine, Q. C. and Dean Peroff for the respondent.
DECISION OF KEVIN M. BURKETT, ALTERNATE CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBER W. F. RUTHERFORD; May 12, 1983
1The Board has before it a complaint against Securicor Investigation and Security Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Securicor) alleging that Securicor, by its actions in connection with a lengthy strike by the employees of Automotive Hardware, Federal Bolt and Nut Corporation and Automotive Screw Machine Products Limited, (all companies under common control and direction and located at the same street address and hereinafter referred to as Automotive), violated sections 64, 66(c) and 70 of the Labour Relations Act. Specifically, it is alleged that the Automotive companies entered into an agreement with Securicor whereby David Ivers, a private investigator employed by Securicor, would be hired as an employee of Federal Bolt and Nut for the purpose of infiltrating the trade union and reporting back to the company on its activities and acting as an "agent provocateur" during the course of a lawful strike.
2The hearings in this matter extended over 18 days during which the Board heard the testimony of 12 witnesses and during which hundreds of pages of documentary evidence was tendered. This is the first time that the Board has been called upon to inquire into the activities of a security company acting on behalf of an employer engaged in a labour dispute; an issue which has been the subject of much recent public debate. Accordingly, the Board has gone to great length to provide a detailed summary of the evidence and to set out the underlying labour relations principles which apply in a case such as this.
3The provisions of the Act which it is alleged have been violated are set out below:
- No employer or employers' organization and no person acting on behalf of an employer or an employers' organization